Can or Should God's Existence be Proven?

[robrecht]

You're using an incorrect definition of 'proof'. Proof refers solely to logical and mathematical proofs. Science deals with exclusively physical evidence pertaining to the function of the natural, physical world. Scientific data can be used to imply the existence of God, but such argument are philosophical in nature and go beyond simple science. Such evidence merely shows that the existence of God is more plausibly true than its opposite. History does not show that God exists... but it does show that the resurrection is the best explanation for the historical data pertaining to the origins of Christianity. History and science themselves are agnostic on the existence of God.

Some ancient proofs, eg, those of Aristotle, do make assumptions that today we would consider incorrect science.

More importantly, Jed's point about existence is also valid. Could have been made by Pseudo-Dionysuus himself.

[Cerebrum123]

I have not rejected the existence of God because of the lack of universal acceptance.

I never said you did, nor anything even close to that. You did however make "universal acceptance" a criteria for "proof" earlier. Since since literally nothing has that it's an irrational criteria to use for anything.

But anyone who does reject a proof for the existence of God can be addressed as to the specific reasons for their non-acceptance.

Not going to argue with that.

It should not be applied to God because God is not in a genus.

That's not a good reason for inconsistent applications of logic.

He is not just any god. Surely you do not believe that God should be thought of as a being in the same category as any other god, right?

That wouldn't mean I throw out reason when talking about God. Logic is one of those things that by necessity must apply to all, including God. Without it there would be no possibility of anyone being able to reason anything.

What exactly do you not understand?

How for example in one post you can disagree with what I've said, then in responding to that part say "I'm glad we agree", despite saying something in disagreement with what I said.

It was only intended to answer your specific question as to what I specifically meant that we agreed about.

I meant specifically in regards to the topic of this thread.

Not quite. My point is that any god whose existence can be proven, disproven, or definitively doubted is not God. God is much, much greater than that which we can prove, disprove, or definitively doubt. For example, we might come to belief in the existence of a first cause, but is that all there is to the Christian God? Clearly not. Aristotle believed in a first cause, but he did not believe in the Christian God. Likewise, those who are not convinced by Aristotle's logic, do not necessarily reject belief in the Christian God.

But the Christian God can be proven. It just takes a bit more evidence than with Aristotle's "first cause". There is some
definitive evidence for the Christian God in creation itself, then there is the person of Jesus, and most important His resurrection.

It is much more similar to a cosmological argument, but it is not spelled out as a formal logical or deductive proof and it certainly does not entertain any insights from modern science.

My mistake, cosmological argument is what it should say.

It doesn't need to be spelled out as a logical argument, or be "modern science" to be an affirmation that God's existence can be proven with evidence. Throughout the NT appeals to evidence are made, and those who reject said evidence are said to be "without excuse", "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness", and having "futile thoughts" etc.

It's very clear that the NT authors were very concerned with the evidence, and with presenting it to others.

I do not agree.

I know that.

No, I showed you exactly where your premises were wrong. You equated my view with those of someone else, whom you were unable to name. You assumed I was saying something unusual or wrong about the Hebrew infinitive absolute, when in fact I was not. In fact I was translating it exactly as is most common. To the best of your ability to recollect whatever the anonymous view was, I was not asserting the same thing, and I was saying much more than what your anonymous comparator was saying.

I'm near 100% positive that that's not what happened at all. That was not a part of my premises, and IIRC I quickly conceded that your view was not his. I can't find the thread. I tried using Tweb's search function, but it doesn't work well. I'm willing go and refresh my memory though if you can help me find the thread.

So you admit that the God of Christianity is not to be equated merely with Aristotle's prime mover.

I never said otherwise.

My sound reason is simply that I do not believe God should be put in a box. I think he is much greater than that. Don't you?

Applying reason and logic is not "putting God in a box".

You are misremebering this other thread. I suggest you go back to it and identify whatever points you do not think I adequately addressed. Perhaps you can answer some of my questions put to you there that you did not at the time. I do not think I am being arbitrary at all. I do believe that the reality of God is beyond our ability to comprehend. That which we can comprehend is simply not the fullness of God. What we may think we have proven or disproven is not the full reality of God. The God of Abraham is not the god of Aristotle. Is that arbitrary?

Refusing to apply logic consistently because God can't be exhaustively understood is indeed arbitrary. However, if you do disprove the resurrection of Jesus you most certainly disprove the God of Christianity. Paul himself accepts this much in 1 Corinthians 15. To sum it up since it's very long, if Christ wasn't raised then we should eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

You help me find the thread, and I'll go reread through it. However, in this case I'm pretty sure it's you who's not remembering correctly.

Nor do I believe that to be the case. But I do believe that the various proofs of the existence of God are of limited value. I think that most people agree with that.

Yup, and as a part of proving the existence of the Christian God. You seem to think this is an all or nothing matter in which God must be proved with one piece of evidence. A kind of "theory of everything" if you will. We don't have that, but it most certainly doesn't mean that we can't prove the existence of God.

Now, what does that mean to you? Do you think that you can offer a classical definition of God and prove Thomas wrong?

To me it means that He can't be classified like we do animals, people, etc. It doesn't however mean that there are no points of comparison with anything we do see in the created order. I don't think I need to prove him wrong, because I don't think that God not being a "genus" has anything to do with whether or not He can be proved to exist.

There are different ways of understanding Thomas' use of the five ways and I have given my understanding (which is not unique to me) elsewhere. I have not used Thomas here to prove that God's existence cannot be proven. I have pointed to his lack of acceptance of Anselm's ontological proof. I have pointed to his view that God cannot be defined in the classical sense. Definitions of words were different back then and so also was Aristotelian logic somewhat different than modern logic, though the degree to which they are different is a matter of complicated debate. Likewise the metaphysical and 'scientific' presuppositions were very different than what one can presume upon in modern and postmodern philosophical debate. All of these considerations support the need to take into consideration the relative value of specific proofs for the existence of God and the specific objections brought up by others.

If quoting Thomas Aquinas doesn't actually add to your argument against God being proven, then why even quote him in the first place? I mean, that's been the entire context of this thread. The only thing this seems to accomplish is to drag this conversation off track where the waters can be muddied further by very old definitions and understandings.

No, your view that I am putting God in the genus of gods is the exact opposite of what I have said.

That's not what I'm doing. I see you as putting God in the category of things that "can be proved, disproven, or definitively doubted". The quoted post speaks to this. You say that anything that could "be proved, disproven, or definitively doubted" specifically "gods", can't be "God". Yet, there is no reason to restrict this reasoning to "gods". For "God" can indeed be proved. That He is beyond exhaustive comprehension isn't a valid excuse to keep Him out of this line of reasoning. It's special pleading.

Well, first you must say exactly what you think I think it means and then we will see if you understand what I think it means. If so, then you should show why my understanding is wrong. In the meantime, you are merely building hypotheticals upon hypotheticals. I do not think Thomas thought he had exhaustive knowledge of God or that he completely contradicts himself in a major way and my view of Thomas' method and conclusions do not presuppose any such thing.

Like I said earlier in this response, I think it means that God can't be classified in the sense of animals, people, and other objects/forces etc.

Please stop trying to characterize what I am advocating. You do not seem to be able to do so in a charitable or particularly insightful manner. I am not a Mormon. I do think experience is important but I don't think I have given it any unusual or absolute value in the determination of revelation.

I only have your posts to go by, and your post was highlighting experience as a method of evangelization. The point being, experience is something all religions can claim for themselves. My question was how you would deal with those who also use experience as one of their primary evidences, and methods of outreach? Trying to pit your experience against theirs isn't going to do any good, especially in the relativistic culture of today.

[robrecht]

I never said you did, nor anything even close to that. You did however make "universal acceptance" a criteria for "proof" earlier. Since since literally nothing has that it's an irrational criteria to use for anything.

No, I do not consider 'universal acceptance' to be a criterion for a proof; I merely think that the lack thereof, based largely on different presuppositions, presumptions, and perspectives, points to one of the limitations of proofs for the existence of God.

Not going to argue with that.

That's not a good reason for inconsistent applications of logic.


That wouldn't mean I throw out reason when talking about God. Logic is one of those things that by necessity must apply to all, including God. Without it there would be no possibility of anyone being able to reason anything.

I am not following you here. I do not claim that our inability to define God in the classical sense is a reason for the inconsistent application of logic.

How for example in one post you can disagree with what I've said, then in responding to that part say "I'm glad we agree", despite saying something in disagreement with what I said.

I quoted what I agreed with and then later further explained what I agree with. I don't understand why this is problematic.

I meant specifically in regards to the topic of this thread.

So do I. I agree with some of the things you have said, but not all, especially with some of your interpretations of my views.

But the Christian God can be proven. It just takes a bit more evidence than with Aristotle's "first cause". There is some
definitive evidence for the Christian God in creation itself, then there is the person of Jesus, and most important His resurrection.

If you accept some rather specific presuppositions or historical data, yes, it can be proven to those who do accept these things, but many would not accept the same historical data that you are accepting.

My mistake, cosmological argument is what it should say.

It doesn't need to be spelled out as a logical argument, or be "modern science" to be an affirmation that God's existence can be proven with evidence. Throughout the NT appeals to evidence are made, and those who reject said evidence are said to be "without excuse", "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness", and having "futile thoughts" etc.

It's very clear that the NT authors were very concerned with the evidence, and with presenting it to others.

Sure, but that is not at all the kind of philosophical logically deductive proof for the existence of God to which I have been referring.

I know that.


I'm near 100% positive that that's not what happened at all. That was not a part of my premises, and IIRC I quickly conceded that your view was not his. I can't find the thread. I tried using Tweb's search function, but it doesn't work well. I'm willing go and refresh my memory though if you can help me find the thread.

Here is the thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...2-Genesis-3-16

In my posts #s 68 & 72 I asked you to identify whose opinion you thought I was also expressing as my own so that I could properly and fully differentiate my opinion. In your post #73 you said you could not remember who these people were. So in #75 I asked if you saw the danger of assuming I was supposedly saying something that you were only vaguely recalling someone else as saying? You did not respond.

I never said otherwise.

Applying reason and logic is not "putting God in a box".

It could be. Depends on the box.

Refusing to apply logic consistently because God can't be exhaustively understood is indeed arbitrary. However, if you do disprove the resurrection of Jesus you most certainly disprove the God of Christianity. Paul himself accepts this much in 1 Corinthians 15. To sum it up since it's very long, if Christ wasn't raised then we should eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

You help me find the thread, and I'll go reread through it. However, in this case I'm pretty sure it's you who's not remembering correctly.

I do not agree that I am not applying logic consistently.

Yup, and as a part of proving the existence of the Christian God. You seem to think this is an all or nothing matter in which God must be proved with one piece of evidence. A kind of "theory of everything" if you will. We don't have that, but it most certainly doesn't mean that we can't prove the existence of God.

I don't think anything of the sort.

To me it means that He can't be classified like we do animals, people, etc. It doesn't however mean that there are no points of comparison with anything we do see in the created order. I don't think I need to prove him wrong, because I don't think that God not being a "genus" has anything to do with whether or not He can be proved to exist.

It has to do with whether or not he can be defined in the classical sense. Do you agree that he cannot or do you still take issue with this point of mine?

If quoting Thomas Aquinas doesn't actually add to your argument against God being proven, then why even quote him in the first place?

Because you asked me to! I brought up my agreement with Thomas about God not being able to be defined in the classical sense because you said we
need to be able to define God in order to distinguish between heretics and those who are truly Christian.

I mean, that's been the entire context of this thread. The only thing this seems to accomplish is to drag this conversation off track where the waters can be muddied further by very old definitions and understandings.

It was part of my original remarks about poor attempts to define the supernatural. If you want to understand my original remarks in context, you should have some interest in the original context.

That's not what I'm doing. I see you as putting God in the category of things that "can be proved, disproven, or definitively doubted". The quoted post speaks to this. You say that anything that could "be proved, disproven, or definitively doubted" specifically "gods", can't be "God". Yet, there is no reason to restrict this reasoning to "gods". For "God" can indeed be proved. That He is beyond exhaustive comprehension isn't a valid excuse to keep Him out of this line of reasoning. It's special pleading.

Again, you are completely missing my point. I am very specifically choosing not to merely put God in the category of things that can be proven, disproven or definitively doubted because I think God is much more than this. A skeptic can say, I do not believe in your definition of God or the supernatural or your proof for God's existence or the existence of the supernatural, to which I would respond by saying my view of God is much, much more than what he may suppose is the supernatural. I do not think one should try to define God. I don't think God can be so comprehended as is required in a classical definition. In the initial discussion, Gary has sure enough gone on to show that he understands God and the supernatural as magic. I do not think that we should accept such terms of discussion. To do so is to belittle and misrepresent the reality of God. You may definitively doubt the existence of magic, you may think that you can disprove the reality of magic or belittle the belief in magic, but it is not so easy to discount the reality of God. I do not deny that the existence of God can be known with subjective human certitude, even proven in some limited circumstances to some people, but I am not willing to concede that anyone who does not accept a particular proof for the existence of God, has necessarily correctly considered the totality of the reality of God.

Like I said earlier in this response, I think it means that God can't be classified in the sense of animals, people, and other objects/forces etc.

True, and also God cannot be defined in the classical sense.

I only have your posts to go by, and your post was highlighting experience as a method of evangelization. The point being, experience is something all religions can claim for themselves. My question was how you would deal with those who also use experience as one of their primary evidences, and methods of outreach? Trying to pit your experience against theirs isn't going to do any good, especially in the relativistic culture of today.

I think evangelization should try and build upon some shared experience.

[Rational Gaze]

Why exactly? Surely you agree that God is greater than that which can be thought, right?

You said that God is greater than that what can be described. Being 'greater than that what can be described' is a definite description. Also, if God is 'greater than that which can be thought of' then we can't conceive of God at all, which is clearly in contrast to Scripture. Perhaps you mean that, whilst God can be known to an extent, we cannot grasp every aspect of His being and existence? If so, then yeah, sure. It doesn't mean, however, that the Ontological arguments (or any argument for that matter) are unsound or invalid. Because, otherwise, you're just a presuppositionalist, and they are the kings of backwards thinking and circular reasoning.

[Rational Gaze]

Some ancient proofs, eg, those of Aristotle, do make assumptions that today we would consider incorrect science.

Such as?

More importantly, Jed's point about existence is also valid.

Not really.

[robrecht]

You said that God is greater than that what can be described. Being 'greater than that what can be described' is a definite description. Also, if God is 'greater than that which can be thought of' then we can't conceive of God at all, which is clearly in contrast to Scripture. Perhaps you mean that, whilst God can be known to an extent, we cannot grasp every aspect of His being and existence? If so, then yeah, sure. It doesn't mean, however, that the Ontological arguments (or any argument for that matter) are unsound or invalid. Because, otherwise, you're just a presuppositionalist, and they are the kings of backwards thinking and circular reasoning.

Well, let's take the last point first. I am not a presuppositionalist. Next, being greater than that which can be described is NOT a description, but rather a negation. Thomas solves the difficulty methodologically by considering all language about God to be analogical. To say God exists means not that God exists in the way that we understand existence in all of our limitations but that what we understand as God's existence is predicated of God as a kind of analogy. God's actual existence is beyond our ability to understand and describe.

[robrecht]

Such as?

Let's look at the first way:

"... For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. ..."

Something can indeed be actually hot and at the same time potentially hotter. And a hot object can indeed transfer its heat to a colder object and can in that process itself become colder. Fire is not a basic component of reality.

Not really.

Really? Do you think that God exists in the same way that fire exists? In the same way as a tree exists? Or in a way that is beyond our ability to describe and define?

[Cerebrum123]

No, I do not consider 'universal acceptance' to be a criterion for a proof; I merely think that the lack thereof, based largely on different presuppositions, presumptions, and perspectives, points to one of the limitations of proofs for the existence of God.

You're the one who effectively said that "universal acceptance" was necessary for a proof here.

No, my intent was certainly not to rule out the God of Christianity as God. I do believe we can have personal assurance of God's existence, and see his effects all around us, but have yet to see any rational deductive proofs of God's existence that were either universally accepted by all people or able to comprehend the nature of God. I think our weak and fallible human reason is too weak to fully comprehend the nature of God.

Since both are impossible, it's irrational to try and bring them up as a criterion to judge by.

I am not following you here. I do not claim that our inability to define God in the classical sense is a reason for the inconsistent application of logic.

You're inconsistently applying logic in this thread. The logic being that if "gods"(this should apply to anything else too) can "be proved, disproved, or definitively doubted" then they are basically too small. Since the God of Christianity can be "proved, disproved, or definitively doubted" then logically He must be too small to be truly "God". God can be proved, and in theory disproved in a definitive way. That He can't be exhaustively known has no bearing on this.

I quoted what I agreed with and then later further explained what I agree with. I don't understand why this is problematic.

Just never mind.

So do I. I agree with some of the things you have said, but not all, especially with some of your interpretations of my views.

Most of the agreement had nothing to do with whether or not God can be proven to exist.

If you accept some rather specific presuppositions or historical data, yes, it can be proven to those who do accept these things, but many would not accept the same historical data that you are accepting.

So? Everything will have disagreement, that has no bearing on whether or not something has sufficient evidence to be considered proven.

Sure, but that is not at all the kind of philosophical logically deductive proof for the existence of God to which I have been referring.

You mean the kind that is literally impossible? You know, "universally accepted", and "able to comprehend the nature of God"?

Here is the thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...2-Genesis-3-16

In my posts #s 68 & 72 I asked you to identify whose opinion you thought I was also expressing as my own so that I could properly and fully differentiate my opinion. In your post #73 you said you could not remember who these people were. So in #75 I asked if you saw the danger of assuming I was supposedly saying something that you were only vaguely recalling someone else as saying? You did not respond.

I did give an answer of one specific person, and their views had no bearing on my syllogism. What you yourself stated in that thread was sufficiently fitting of the syllogism. You merely dismissed logic as a tool to use when discussing "poetic narrative". When your own words are enough for the syllogism to be valid, then duh-swami and company's views are irrelevant. I didn't respond to that particular part for two reasons. 1, I was dropping out of the thread as you clearly weren't dealing with what I was saying, and 2, the syllogism was still a valid reconstruction of what you had said in that thread.

For those who don't want to wade through that thread there is this.

robrecht said that God did not punish Adam and Eve as He said He would. robrecht said that the serpent was telling Adam and Eve the truth about "being like God". robrecht agrees that God's foreknowledge meant He knew in advance about all of this(no link, but robrecht never denied this).

First syllogism, God ending up as a liar.

Premise 1, a falsehood spoken when it is known to be false is a lie.
Premise 2, God knows the future, thus knew that what He said was false.

Conclusion, God lied.

For God being unjust we have two different things.

Premise 1, God is a God of truth.
Premise 2, God delights in truth. Telling the truth is the right thing to do, especially when someone has been lied to.
Premise 3, the serpent spoke the whole truth, Adam and Eve would be like God, knowing both good and evil, and they would not die.

Observation, God punished the serpent for merely telling the truth.

Conclusion, God unjustly punished the serpent for doing what was right.

Premise 1, Biblical mercy is not withholding punishment from those who are unrepentant, and deserve their punishment.
Premise 2, Adam and Eve both deserved their punishment, and were unrepentant.
Premise 3 God is completely Holy, and cannot abide sin. Sin must be punished, and in the proper way.
Premise 4, The wages of sin is death(both physical and spiritual)
Premise 5(Your premise, which doesn't fit the account since Adam and Eve were both punished with physical and spiritual death, one immediate, one later to come) Adam and Eve were not punished according to God's Law. They did not die according to God's own words.

Conclusion, God is unjust.

Feel free to show me how, logically, you can avoid the conclusions, which I find you should agree with all those premises.

robrecht did not do any of that. He merely dismissed logic as something useful for a "poetic narrative"(something I repeatedly asked him to explain), and dismissed my conclusions. He also repeatedly dismissed entire posts of mine as "nonsense". He would snip out parts of my posts, and then ask questions that were answered by the parts he snipped out.

It could be. Depends on the box.

I do not agree that I am not applying logic consistently.

I've already shown why you're not doing that.

I don't think anything of the sort.

I said it seems that way.

It has to do with whether or not he can be defined in the classical sense. Do you agree that he cannot or do you still take issue with this point of mine?

If by "defined" you mean exhaustively defined, then I don't disagree. If you're saying that we can't have a basic definition of God so that we know something about whom we are talking about then I disagree.

Because you asked me to! I brought up my agreement with Thomas about God not being able to be defined in the classical sense because you said we
need to be able to define God in order to distinguish between heretics and those who are truly Christian.

Sorry, I should have worded that differently. Why did you bring him up if it has no real bearing on this thread. I did ask you to quote him, but only because I wasn't sure you were accurately representing him.

Oh, and I said we need a basic definition so we can at least be sure we are talking about the same God. Mormons claim that they worship the same God as Christians, but knowing a few things about Christianity, and Mormonism dispels this. You can sometimes fine Muslims who make the same claim, but this is shown to be false for the same reason. The devil is in the details, and in something this important you need details in order to guard yourself from falsehoods.

It was part of my original remarks about poor attempts to define the supernatural. If you want to understand my original remarks in context, you should have some interest in the original context.

I didn't see anything in the original post, or what it was responding to that makes bringing in Thomas Aquinas helpful, or necessary in any way.

Again, you are completely missing my point. I am very specifically choosing not to merely put God in the category of things that can be proven, disproven or definitively doubted because I think God is much more than this. A skeptic can say, I do not believe in your definition of God or the supernatural or your proof for God's existence or the existence of the supernatural, to which I would respond by saying my view of God is much, much more than what he may suppose is the supernatural. I do not think one should try to define God. I don't think God can be so comprehended as is required in a classical definition. In the initial discussion, Gary has sure enough gone on to show that he understands God and the supernatural as magic. I do not think that we should accept such terms of discussion. To do so is to belittle and misrepresent the reality of God. You may definitively doubt the existence of magic, you may think that you can disprove the reality of magic or belittle the belief in magic, but it is not so easy to discount the reality of God. I do not deny that the existence of God can be known with subjective human certitude, even proven in some limited circumstances to some people, but I am not willing to concede that anyone who does not accept a particular proof for the existence of God, has necessarily correctly considered the totality of the reality of God.

The skeptic can just as easily dismiss a transcendent creator as they can "magic". I've seen it routinely. It's somewhat less common, but that's for a variety of reasons. A deistic "god" is considered the same, but atheists/agnostics don't care about a deistic "god". Followers of what I will refer to as "ultra transcendent" "gods" generally don't evangelize, or believe that such a "god" has any demands of people(this overlaps with the deistic "god". Finally, a God that is so transcendent that it can't be understood in any rational way can't be discussed in any rational way.

You say you don't want to put God in a "box", but you're doing just that. The only difference is that your box can't be opened.

True, and also God cannot be defined in the classical sense.

Okay...

I think evangelization should try and build upon some shared experience.

I think it should focus on Christ, His death, His resurrection, and what that means. Experience will just get thrown in your face as a "proof" that what they believe is either "verified by God", or is "right for them".

While I agree that presuppositions are important, and am somewhat a "presuppositionalist" myself, I think evidence plays an important role too. Experience is just too easily used against any form of evangelization or apologetics.

You can have the last word if you want. After refreshing my memory in that other thread, I think that further discussion will be pointless.

[robrecht]

Cerebrum123, you keep repeating your interpretations of what I've said even when I have explicitly. rejected such interpretations. That is truly pointless. I will address more completely later.

[robrecht]

You're the one who effectively said that "universal acceptance" was necessary for a proof here.

Since both are impossible, it's irrational to try and bring them up as a criterion to judge by.

I have already told you that I do not consider universal acceptance to be a criterion, necessary or otherwise, for a proof. For you to persist in claiming that I have effectively said this is merely to ignore my actual view and substitute your interpretation of my view, which you now know to be a misinterpretation of my view. No matter how many times you try and tell me what my view is, it does not become my view. A conversation that ignores the actual views of the other person is not a real conversation.

You're inconsistently applying logic in this thread. The logic being that if "gods"(this should apply to anything else too) can "be proved, disproved, or definitively doubted" then they are basically too small. Since the God of Christianity can be "proved, disproved, or definitively doubted" then logically He must be too small to be truly "God". God can be proved, and in theory disproved in a definitive way. That He can't be exhaustively known has no bearing on this.

You are trying to build a theory of what my logical position ought to be based on taking one sentence out of context. Poor definitions of the supernatural are indeed crucial to my view here. Our inability to comprehend God's existence as it truly is, is central to my perspective here. Although one can in some circumstances prove the existence of God, we should not presume that we understand the true nature of his existence. A proof can speak of God's existence in analogous ways to the types of existence that we are familiar with, but God's actual existence is infinitely beyond our understanding of existence. Thus a proof does not and cannot fully communicate the reality of God. Moreover, I do not believe that the God of Christianity can be definitively proven, disproven, or doubted. So interjection of this step into your view of my position distorts my position. Everything can be doubted, but doubts, especially doubts about the wrong thing, are not definitive.

Just never mind.

Most of the agreement had nothing to do with whether or not God can be proven to exist.

Correct.

So? Everything will have disagreement, that has no bearing on whether or not something has sufficient evidence to be considered proven.

For those who disagree it certainly does.

You mean the kind that is literally impossible? You know, "universally accepted", and "able to comprehend the nature of God"?

No, that is not what I am referring to here. Recall that I do not consider universal acceptance to be a necessary criterion of a proof for the existence of God. I am just speaking of philosophical logically deductive proofs.

I did give an answer of one specific person, and their views had no bearing on my syllogism. What you yourself stated in that thread was sufficiently fitting of the syllogism. You merely dismissed logic as a tool to use when discussing "poetic narrative". When your own words are enough for the syllogism to be valid, then duh-swami and company's views are irrelevant. I didn't respond to that particular part for two reasons. 1, I was dropping out of the thread as you clearly weren't dealing with what I was saying, and 2, the syllogism was still a valid reconstruction of what you had said in that thread.

I did not agree that a syllogism was the best way to interpret a poetic narrative and I pointed out to you some of the most important elements of the narrative that your syllogism completely ignored so, no, your syllogism did not build upon my actual views and statements correctly understood.

For those who don't want to wade through that thread there is this.

robrecht said that God did not punish Adam and Eve as He said He would. robrecht said that the serpent was telling Adam and Eve the truth about "being like God". robrecht agrees that God's foreknowledge meant He knew in advance about all of this(no link, but robrecht never denied this).

robrecht did not do any of that. He merely dismissed logic as something useful for a "poetic narrative"(something I repeatedly asked him to explain), and dismissed my conclusions. He also repeatedly dismissed entire posts of mine as "nonsense". He would snip out parts of my posts, and then ask questions that were answered by the parts he snipped out.

It is a shame that you dropped out of the thread. I repeatedly asked you to specify what I had not responded to as I was more than willing to address each item in more detail or any that I may have missed. I still believe that you should have answered my question about why it is not good to assume I must be saying the same thing as someone else who may have mentioned the infinitive absolute. If you would learn to stop imposing your caricatures of other people's views on them, we might be able to have an actual conversation.

I've already shown why you're not doing that.

I reject your characterization of my views so you have shown nothing of the sort.

I said it seems that way.

And I have clarified that it is not correct.

If by "defined" you mean exhaustively defined, then I don't disagree. If you're saying that we can't have a basic definition of God so that we know something about whom we are talking about then I disagree.

Clearly I do not mean the latter! But the former is a bit of an equivocation. Do you agree or disagree with Thomas and me about whether or not God can be defined in the classical sense of genus and specific difference?

Sorry, I should have worded that differently. Why did you bring him up if it has no real bearing on this thread. I did ask you to quote him, but only because I wasn't sure you were accurately representing him.

Do you now agree that I was not misrepresenting him? I have already explained the relevance for understanding my perspective in in its original context. Surely you would not want this thread to take my remarks out of context, right? I will go into more detail about this below.

Oh, and I said we need a basic definition so we can at least be sure we are talking about the same God. Mormons claim that they worship the same God as Christians, but knowing a few things about Christianity, and Mormonism dispels this. You can sometimes fine Muslims who make the same claim, but this is shown to be false for the same reason. The devil is in the details, and in something this important you need details in order to guard yourself from falsehoods.

I didn't see anything in the original post, or what it was responding to that makes bringing in Thomas Aquinas helpful, or necessary in any way.

Again, the part about defining (or poorly defining) the supernatural. I follow Thomas on the inability to offer a classical definition of God, who is I think the premier example of the supernatural. Debates that revolve around poorly defined views of the supernatural are a waste of time in my opinion, likewise proofs, disproofs, or doubts about the existence of a poorly defined God. Some proofs, eg, that of Duns Scotus, if I recall correctly, do attempt to deal with this issue, and I credit him for this. But even the most prominent philosopher I've known personally who eventually came to accept Duns Scotus’ proof immediately admitted that the proof did not prove the existence of the Christian God. I was impressed that he came to accept the validity of the proof, but even more impressed by his awareness and honest admission of its limitations.

The skeptic can just as easily dismiss a transcendent creator as they can "magic". I've seen it routinely. It's somewhat less common, but that's for a variety of reasons. A deistic "god" is considered the same, but atheists/agnostics don't care about a deistic "god". Followers of what I will refer to as "ultra transcendent" "gods" generally don't evangelize, or believe that such a "god" has any demands of people(this overlaps with the deistic "god".

Of course. A skeptic can be skeptical about anything. I just happen to believe it is better to be skeptical about the right things rather than poorly defined things.

Finally, a God that is so transcendent that it can't be understood in any rational way can't be discussed in any rational way.

I hope you're not trying to imply that this is the kind of God that I believe in.

You say you don't want to put God in a "box", but you're doing just that. The only difference is that your box can't be opened.

Not at all. The box has already been opened by Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, and God is infinitely spilling out all over the place. It's a global flood of epic proportions and everyone is at risk of drowning in God until they learn to breathe with his Spirit.

Okay...

I think it should focus on Christ, His death, His resurrection, and what that means. Experience will just get thrown in your face as a "proof" that what they believe is either "verified by God", or is "right for them".

While I agree that presuppositions are important, and am somewhat a "presuppositionalist" myself, I think evidence plays an important role too. Experience is just too easily used against any form of evangelization or apologetics.

You can have the last word if you want. After refreshing my memory in that other thread, I think that further discussion will be pointless.

I don't disagree with any of this.

[Adrift]

I have already told you that I do not consider universal acceptance to be a criterion, necessary or otherwise, for a proof. For you to persist in claiming that I have effectively said this is merely to ignore my actual view and substitute your interpretation of my view, which you now know to be a misinterpretation of my view. No matter how many times you try and tell me what my view is, it does not become my view. A conversation that ignores the actual views of the other person is not a real conversation.

robrecht, I don't think the issue is him, I think it's you. You're not making any sense. I mean, it looks like you're just talking in riddles.

In post #4 you said that you haven't seen any rational deductive proofs for God's existence that have been universally accepted by all people. The context here is of course the OP, "Can or should God's existence be proven", and the first three posts where I've quoted you from a previous thread, Leonhard made a post and Cerebrum made a post. Cerebrum correctly noted that when people generally talk of providing proofs for God's existence, no one has in mind universally accepted proofs (because obviously that's nonsense). You oddly replied that you had it mind (to which we assume you were referring to your own post #4). Cerebrum correctly noted what should have again been obvious, that he was referring to others besides yourself in post #4.

Common sense would tell us that by stating that you hadn't seen any universally accepted rational deductive proofs for God, you seemed to be implying that that is what it would take to simply prove God exists. At least in the general context that was established at that point. I think that's how most ordinary persons would read that point. If you meant something far deeper than that...well...you lost your audience. So Cerebrum was again correct in post #18 to point out that you seemed to be necessitating some sort of "universal acceptance" in order to speak about simple proofs for God's existence. He pointed out that it is ridiculous to expect universal acceptance on anything, especially God's existence. Which is, yeah, a no-brainer.

You replied in post #22 with "It is only as ridiculous as any attempt to speak convincingly of universal truth to as many people as possible." Which makes absolutely no sense to me as a reply to anything that Cerebrum said. I honestly don't even know what that sentence means, or is trying to convey.

In post #27 you somehow misconstrued the meaning of Cerebrum's post #25 into saying that you rejected the existence of God because the lack of universal acceptance. How you got that out of anything he said, I have no idea. In post #32 Cerebrum corrected your strange misunderstanding, and again pointed out that you seemed to be making "universal acceptance" a criteria for "proof", and that's precisely what it looks like you were doing in post #4.

In post #33 you clarified that you did not think that "universal acceptance" is a criterion of proof, but that you think the lack of universal acceptance is a limitation to those proofs that do exist for God's existence. Which, again, is a sort of odd thing to say. As Cerebrum earlier pointed out, every proof lacks universal acceptance. I mean, yeah, technically that's a limitation, but so what? Should be another one of those things that kind of goes without saying.

In post #38 Cerebrum pointed back to post #4 to show you where readers (at least some readers) thought you were implying that "universal acceptance" was necessary for proof, and that leads us to the current post. Cerebrum isn't ignoring your actual view, he's showing where your view has been badly communicated to the rest of us.

robrecht, you're obviously a very intelligent individual. I think sometimes you forget your audience though. Not everyone you come into contact in real life is thinking four layers deep, or is all studied up in philosophy and Catholic theology. You occasionally tend to take for granted complicated concepts that make sense in your mind, but in plain speak will lose an audience made up of lay people.

[Cerebrum123]

In post #38 Cerebrum pointed back to post #4 to show you where readers (at least some readers) thought you were implying that "universal acceptance" was necessary for proof, and that leads us to the current post. Cerebrum isn't ignoring your actual view, he's showing where your view has been badly communicated to the rest of us.

Thank you! I don't know what's up either. When not dealing with me robrecht does seem quite intelligent, but my interactions with him have me floored afterward. I think I even told him near the end of his thread that if he didn't mean those things then he's doing a terrible job communicating what he does mean. So glad I'm not the only one seeing this.

[robrecht]

robrecht, I don't think the issue is him, I think it's you. You're not making any sense. I mean, it looks like you're just talking in riddles.

In post #4 you said that you haven't seen any rational deductive proofs for God's existence that have been universally accepted by all people. The context here is of course the OP, "Can or should God's existence be proven", and the first three posts where I've quoted you from a previous thread, Leonhard made a post and Cerebrum made a post. Cerebrum correctly noted that when people generally talk of providing proofs for God's existence, no one has in mind universally accepted proofs (because obviously that's nonsense). You oddly replied that you had it mind (to which we assume you were referring to your own post #4). Cerebrum correctly noted what should have again been obvious, that he was referring to others besides yourself in post #4.

Of course it was obvious that Cerebrum123 was not referring to me, but nonetheless I felt it was necessary to assert my own right to interpret my own remarks. I have been exasperated with Cerebrum123's attempts in the past to tell me what are the logical implications of my views without even first understanding what my views are and he was doing it again here.

Common sense would tell us that by stating that you hadn't seen any universally accepted rational deductive proofs for God, you seemed to be implying that that is what it would take to simply prove God exists. At least in the general context that was established at that point. I think that's how most ordinary persons would read that point. If you meant something far deeper than that...well...you lost your audience. So Cerebrum was again correct in post #18 to point out that you seemed to be necessitating some sort of "universal acceptance" in order to speak about simple proofs for God's existence. He pointed out that it is ridiculous to expect universal acceptance on anything, especially God's existence. Which is, yeah, a no-brainer.

I can understand that someone might think I seem to be implying something, but to think I am implying something ridiculous, and to keep insisting that this is what I was saying despite my explicit clarifications is a little different. Whatever happened to giving someone the benefit of the doubt and trying to understand what their point might be? Did you really mean to imply something that seems ridiculous? All the way through the thread, despite my attempts to clarify for him, he was still insisting that I was being 'irrational' to hold a position that he believed was mine. Before I said anything at all in this thread, Cerebrum123 had already formed his opinion of me as supposedly 'denying that we can know anything about God, even His existence', and claiming that my view was 'unchristian' and that I had supposedly 'ruled out the God of Christianity as God'. Before I said anything at all in this thread that was his stated interpretation of my views. And nothing I have said in this thread pointing out that these are not my view has changed his opinion that I am supposedly saying that 'God can't be understood in any rational way and can't be discussed in any rational way'.

You replied in post #22 with "It is only as ridiculous as any attempt to speak convincingly of universal truth to as many people as possible." Which makes absolutely no sense to me as a reply to anything that Cerebrum said. I honestly don't even know what that sentence means, or is trying to convey.

So what might I have meant? You suppose above that perhaps I meant something far deeper but I had lost my audience. I was merely stating a fact. An obvious fact and then a more subtle one.

No, my intent was certainly not to rule out the God of Christianity as God. I do believe we can have personal assurance of God's existence, and see his effects all around us, but have yet to see any rational deductive proofs of God's existence that were either universally accepted by all people or able to comprehend the nature of God. I think our weak and fallible human reason is too weak to fully comprehend the nature of God.

Why is it important that rational deductive proofs of God's existence are not accepted by many people, even some Christians? Why isn't it important to try and understand why some people do not accept some rational deductive proofs? Why not try to understand some weaknesses and limitations of these proofs? Why aren't philosophical proofs for the existence of God met with the same degree of universal assent as mathematical or geometrical proofs? There are differing philosophical perspectives, different metaphysical presumptions, differing religious presuppositions. These are important considerations when discussing philosophical proofs for the existence of God. Being aware of these challenges does not mean that I am making a ridiculous claim that no proof can be considered valid unless it meets with universal assent. I did not say that. It is just a true statement of fact about the challenge of trying to prove philosophically the existence of God.

And despite the fact that I clearly said I am certainly not ruling out the God of Christianity as God. That I clearly do believe we can have personal assurance of God's existence, and see his effects all around us, Cerebrum123 still insists that I am rejecting what Christianity explicitly teaches about God. Despite the fact that I said in my very next post that 'I do believe that God can be known with human certainty and that his existence can be understood and proven to exist', until the end of this thread, he is still claiming that I am saying that 'God can't be understood in any rational way and can't be discussed in any rational way'.

Even when I tried to explicitly agree with him that 'comprehensive knowledge is not needed to prove that God exists and that, while God can't be exhaustively defined, there are indeed things that define him, ie, that he is truth, he is love, he is just, merciful, etc, he still will not simply accept my agreement with him on these points. What is his need to disagree with me on even these points?

In post #27 you somehow misconstrued the meaning of Cerebrum's post #25 into saying that you rejected the existence of God because the lack of universal acceptance. How you got that out of anything he said, I have no idea. In post #32 Cerebrum corrected your strange misunderstanding, and again pointed out that you seemed to be making "universal acceptance" a criteria for "proof", and that's precisely what it looks like you were doing in post #4.

In post #33 you clarified that you did not think that "universal acceptance" is a criterion of proof, but that you think the lack of universal acceptance is a limitation to those proofs that do exist for God's existence. Which, again, is a sort of odd thing to say. As Cerebrum earlier pointed out, every proof lacks universal acceptance. I mean, yeah, technically that's a limitation, but so what? Should be another one of those things that kind of goes without saying.

In post #38 Cerebrum pointed back to post #4 to show you where readers (at least some readers) thought you were implying that "universal acceptance" was necessary for proof, and that leads us to the current post. Cerebrum isn't ignoring your actual view, he's showing where your view has been badly communicated to the rest of us.

robrecht, you're obviously a very intelligent individual. I think sometimes you forget your audience though. Not everyone you come into contact in real life is thinking four layers deep, or is all studied up in philosophy and Catholic theology. You occasionally tend to take for granted complicated concepts that make sense in your mind, but in plain speak will lose an audience made up of lay people.

Sure, there are times I do not express myself very clearly. But I am usually fairly patient in trying to clarify whatever is not clear.

[Adrift]

So what might I have meant? You suppose above that perhaps I meant something far deeper but I had lost my audience. I was merely stating a fact. An obvious fact and then a more subtle one.

Why? Why was it important for you to state this obvious and then subtle fact? To who, specifically, was it directed? Did you think anyone doubted these particular facts that they needed stating?

I'm not going to push on the rest of your post. I think you've explained some things to my satisfaction, but I also feel that there's probably a bit of cross-talk, or maybe even a disagreement in how we approach simple discussion. So, yeah...

[robrecht]

Why? Why was it important for you to state this obvious and then subtle fact? To who, specifically, was it directed? Did you think anyone doubted these particular facts that they needed stating?

I'm not going to push on the rest of your post. I think you've explained some things to my satisfaction, but I also feel that there's probably a bit of cross-talk, or maybe even a disagreement in how we approach simple discussion. So, yeah...

I don't know that it was all that important, it just flowed off the keyboard in setting up my perspective, the beginning of which is always to try and understand the perspective of those who might disagree with me. I just learn that way. First I gave my view, to reassure Cerebrum123 that we agreed about the basics, then I tried to widen the perspective to those who do not agree, and finally I tried to touch the sky in pointing at our God who is above it all, the broadest perspective of all.